Why? Does the Times have research that shows that when someone is denied access to her eleventh NYT article, she’s going to cave in and buy a subscription for $195/year? Because my informal market research — I sat myself in an airless room, asked myself some questions, and rewarded myself with m&m’s — indicates that I will just get more annoyed at the NYTimes, and regret its insistence on losing its place in our culture.

We have a print subscription, so we have unlimited access, but I would not be paying for it otherwise. I do like their coverage generally.

My problem with the headline is that I thought they meant they were reverting their policy back to allowing unlimited access, when, instead, they are further restricting access. Obviously, not everyone reads it that way.